Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

thanks for the response. We are off to a good start so we are...

First 135 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
congo

48 Posts.

27/01/15

12:50

Post #: 14645141
Share

Originally posted by tristanc ↑

1. You don't understand the definition of argumentum ad hominem.

2. You also don't really understand the concept of the null hypothesis. Given that the physical properties of CO2 (in particular its ability to absorb thermal infrared) have been understood for more than 1 1/2 centuries, I would argue that the null hypothesis is that elevated CO2 concentrations will do exactly what fundamental physics says they will.

3. I've already told you: I'm not playing your game. You've given precisely zero substantive input to this thread, so why should I be inclined to go running around on your command?

Expand

thanks for the response. We are off to a good start

so we are dealing with this issue - The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to ?

so you think that I'm not leading or forcing you to run around can you please tell me what the current IPCC theoretical estimates are for ECS and TCS and we will go from there...

thanks
Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 23 more messages in this thread...

First 135 Last